[rescue] best NetBSD support

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Monday, June 17, 2002 at 17:25:09 (-0500), Eric Dittman wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [rescue] best NetBSD support
>
> If the developers know about it, then they know about it.  No
> about of whining about GNATS on your part changes that.

Documenting issues like this in the proper forum is the best way to
start to understand them and make sure they're acknowledge by those who
can do something about them.  If the PR is there, and a fix is found and
proven to resolve the problem, then the PR can be closed and those
worried about the problem will know it's been fixed, and how, and when.

> When I see a NetBSD/VAX developer acknowledge to someone with
> corrupted firmware on a 4000/90 that the corruption is a known
> issue, then I *KNOW* one word:  True.

Where do you think this acknowlegement was published?  Is it in the
source?  Are you going just by comments on the port-vax mailing list?

So far as I can remember one developer acknowledged that something was
affecting the FlashRAM and asked for help in learning how to read (and
possibly re-write) its data.  That's about all I've heard of it.

So far as I can find there is only one tiny comment in the commit logs,
but nothing conclusive about the problem, or the validity of the fix:

----------------------------
revision 1.22
date: 2002/04/30 12:33:32;  author: ragge;  state: Exp;  lines: +3 -3
branches:  1.22.2;  1.22.4;
Don't try to probe for dz11 on 4000/90, may corrupt the flash rom (?).
Suggested by Hugh Graham <hugh at openbsd.org>.
----------------------------

That change is, by default, in 1.6:    netbsd-1-6-base: 1.22

If you wish to prove its validity now you know where to start.


> I've never seen anyone attribute this problem to anything
> but NetBSD/VAX.  You may not believe it, but I really don't
> care.

Then you haven't read the port-vax mailing list very carefully, have you.


> I don't need to go on record, since others have.

NOBODY has "gone on record" properly yet -- there is no GNATS PR!


>  Stating the
> truth is not whining.

If it were the truth....


>  Other than the fact that perfectly
> good 4000/90 systems have been killed, I don't care about
> NetBSD/VAX.

Since when does a literally _HARMLESS_ "POST" warning become equivalent
to "killed"?  To quote one of the first persons to report the problem:

     Giving ">>> boot" will bring up VMS like before, no further
     problems, errors or messages.

I.e. the machine still boots -- it still boots NetBSD, and it still
boots VMS, and it still runs both operating systems with "no furhter
problems, errors, or messages."

You're blowing one tiny issue way out of all reasonable proportion.

If you have a beef with NetBSD, that's one thing, but such subversive
smearing techniques are not very productive, and can only backfire in
the long run.

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <gwoods at acm.org>;  <g.a.woods at ieee.org>;  <woods at robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods at weird.com>